[deepsand]

Thank you for your acknowledgement.



What most here overlook is that the issue under dicussion is not what our personal ideal worlds might be like, but rather the real world in which we live, one in which our individual rights are of necessity bounded to the extent that they cannot be allowed be allowed to infringe upon those of others; to deny such limitations is to invite anarchy.



I should like to live in a world where all are free to pursue their individuals desires, without want for material necessities, without need for taking from others to satisfy their desires. However, absent a complete loss of individuality, utopias shall remain unattainable ideals.



May the Future Be Kind.

[bigpicture]

I have seen your argument or a derivative thereof on the internet hundreds of times since back in 2003 when I started to follow the SCO / IBM issue. By the way I support your argument/position as rational. But as I see it the root cause is not the copyright system, but it is the LEGAL SYSTEM ITSELF that is broke. Irrational, corrupt and pandering to special greedy interests, and not public interests, the same as the political system.

The principle that applies here is: "If you teach a thief accounting all that you have done is to teach him an easier way to steal". Fundamentally the dishonesty remains.

[deepsand]

While I concur regarding the results often obtained from our legal system, I would argue that it is not the system itself which is broken, but rather the age old problem of human greed, coupled with the requisite power for advancing ones desires, a problem that is hardly unique to either the legal system or those who there practice.



The issue is one of how to control greed, without unduely constraining the human spirit, for which mankind has yet to find a viable solution.

[bigpicture]

They used to dunk (drown) "witches", they used to burn "heretics" at the stake. Who decided that these people needed to be drown and burned? Why the same people that determined who were witches and heretics and who were not. Those who held the reigns of power.

When they get too abusive and too arrogant then there is the "revolution". It always takes them by surprise. But of course there is the brinksmanship of how far can they push the abuses through media control while selling the spin of democary and justice.

There is no idealism involved here this is just the 21st century version of witch hunting and heretic torture.

TPTB get to decide who are witches and who are heretics. What music has the RIAA ever written? It is creation that gives some moral title to ownership. So it is back to "the easier way to steal". Copyright and monopoly of recording technology created an easy way for the recording companies to steal, (from the artists and fans alike) as did the circumvention of "due process" created by the DMCA. (create laws so they can legally break down the doors and haul them out of bed) On the other side, file sharing created an "easier way to steal" for music fans, except that "making a copy" is not really stealing because "nothing was taken that had existed before". So everyone can go round and round about the finer points of the law as it exists today, but witch burning is inappropriate in this age.

The RIAA thinks that this does not cause any backlash issues, and they can argue all the fine points of the law that they want. But one of the first principles of successful business is "YOU DO NOT SUE YOUR CUSTOMERS" if you want them to continue buying your product. (do not piss off your customer base)

[deepsand]

You're now veering sharply off course.



And, you also ignore the fact that there are bad customers. In fact, it might be argued that the defendant was one such, assuming that she was ever truly a customer under the usual definition. Either way, she sought to facilitate theft.



You can argue all you like that intellectual property should be freely available to all, that you've the right to take from others that which they have created, or from those who have rightfully taken ownership of such creations, to no avail. Greed is greed, and theft is theft, no matter the reason.

[drklassen]

There was no theft. Theft is the taking of property. Nothing was taken. The only thing that happened was that folks who (may have) copied her files infringed on the copyright.

[deepsand]

You need to revisit the definition of "property," paying particular attention to intangible property.



You don't get to decide what is and is not property as suits your wants of the moment.

[bigpicture]

You seem to be obsessed with the law and legal principles, and the defining what is legal and what is not. And then take this all out of context as to it's social and physiological effects, and how it harmonizes or conflicts with other principles such best business practices and human nature.

What is the RIAA trying to do here? Create a different business model by teaching their customers a lesson? Show the public in no uncertain terms (which may not have been as obvious before) that they have a monopoly and will maintain it at all costs. Did they think that the public was too stupid not to see the real issue? Which in this case is: "You can offer your customers value through the products that you sell in a competitive marketplace where the customer has choices, or you can monopolize and close off and rig the market so you can charge whatever price the market will bear without any consideration of value".

The selling of pre-recorded media is an anachronism in this age so how do they expect to sustain it? By suing the customer? How many companies do this as a revenue generating business model? If they know anything about human behavior at all they should know that people resist being controlled to the point of revolution. Capturing heats and minds (customers) is a much more subtle affair, just ask any ad agency or PR company. Think that I am now going to add to my 300+ purchased CD collection, think again.

[deepsand]

You'll need to find another player; I don't engage sophists.

[quackadilly]

I hate RIAA.



No one will ever see the $1.92 million that is "owed"......

[drklassen]

If an idea in a fixed form were property, we wouldn't need copyright, trademark, and patent (CTP)



These concepts were created because ideas can't be stolen and even the fixed form of the expression of an idea can not be stolen. All I can do is copy them and redistribute the. CTP were created for one reason: to give [for limited times] monopoly power to copy and distribute copies, and make derivative works from the fixed forms of ones ideas as incentive to keep doing it. Note that limited times part---that is necessary for two reasons: 1) nobody comes up with truly original ideas or even fixed forms of an idea all on their own---they are part of a society wherein their ideas percholate, prodded, and helped along, thus that society should gain the benefit of freely using them after some time, since society was a part of their creation; 2) to keep the inventive people working instead of allowing them to keep collecting from a single good fixed expession of an idea forever (cf. artisens---you make a chair, you sell it; if you want to keep eating, make another one).



Copyright has become sorely abused and the word "limited" stretched beyond all recognition so I have no problem with forms of civil disobedience that ignore it after, say 15--20 years.



However, in this particular case, the defendant did not distribute copies. None. Other people made copies from her files. Are libraries responsible for the copyright infringement of others who borrow and copy CD's? If not, why should she be responsible for others copying her files?!

[Harold3]

Over the years copyright has become more onerous and longer in application. Copyright was meant to provide a limited monoply for the author to make some money while at the same time promoting the creation of content that would fall into the public domain. What is being overlooked in all this whining about the rights of the content creators is that the expanision of copyright constitutes a form of THEFT from the public.

Furthermore, when the public buys content they aquire a property right to use that content.

[deepsand]

"If an idea in a fixed form were property, we wouldn't need copyright, trademark, and patent (CTP)

These concepts were created because ideas can't be stolen and even the fixed form of the expression of an idea can not be stolen. "



Since you obviously reject the notion of intangible property, you will presumably then have no objection to anyone taking any of your financial assets.



"All I can do is copy them and redistribute the."



You can; but, you cannot require that others allow you to freely do so.



"However, in this particular case, the defendant did not distribute copies. If not, why should she be responsible for others copying her files?"



To repeat "As for culpability, again, I've already addressed the issue of an affirmative act. In this case, such act affirmed the intent to allow unlawful duplication. By offering the files for duplication via Kazaa, duplication being the only function of Kazaa, the defendant herself removed all doubt as to her intent, thus rebutting the presumption of innocence."

[deepsand]

The buyer does not here acquire a "property" right, but rather a "limited license" to use. Said license does not include an uinfettered right to duplicate said content.

[WinTard]

deepsand said:

The buyer does not here acquire a "property" right, but rather a "limited license" to use. Said license does not include an uinfettered right to duplicate said content.

Lending my legitimally obtained copy to a friend doesn't mean I am duplicating it.

In certain countries, such as Canada, the laws are specific:

Excerpt from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filesharingin_Canada

The mere fact of placing a copy on a shared directory in a computer where that copy can be accessed via a P2P service does not amount to distribution. Before it constitutes distribution, there must be a positive act by the owner of the shared directory, such as sending out the copies or advertising that they are available for copying.

Also big companies can't have their cake and eat it too:

Google: Results 1 - 10 of about 402,000 for canadian media levy. (0.25 seconds)

Since companies insisted and won a levy on ALL blank media being sold, they now can't say one cannot record onto these media... So backing up for personal purposes is completely LEGAL under certain jurisdictions.

I don't see where a levy should be imposed onto a blank DVD-R or CD-R or memory cards, for personal data or photos, but nevertheless, it is being levied, and paid for by EVERYONE, regardless whether it is for a personal backup of a pre-recorded music or movie or original art personal data...

So there. Treat innocent people like criminals, and you will also be treated with and in contempt, likewise.

Anyway, the RIAA is an anachronism. It is a dinosaur headed towards extinction. Their fatal mistake was to bite the hand that feeds them. The Public won't forget or forgive that. Ever.

As for the United States, people, stand up for YOUR RIGHTS! The Land of the Free must mean something?

~~~~~~~~~~~
You may be deceived if you trust too much, but you will live in torment if you do not trust enough.
~ Frank Crane

The most valuable things in life are not measured in monetary terms. The really important things are not houses and lands, stocks and bonds, automobiles and real state, but friendships, trust, confidence, empathy, mercy, love and faith.
~ Bertrand Russell

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
~ Edmund Burke

Mistrust the man who finds everything good, the man who finds everything evil and still more the man who is indifferent to everything.
~ Johann K. Lavater

It is more shameful to distrust our friends than to be deceived by them.
~ Confucius

He who does not trust enough; Will not be trusted.
~ Lao Tzu

If you can't lick 'em, join 'em.
{American Proverb}

People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them.
~ Eric Hoffer, 1902-1983, American Social Writer

[backbuster]

In Canada the copyright laws are a little different then those in the U.S. It is legal to make a copy of music for your own personal use. You cannot share music on the internet(p2p or E-mail) as this would be considered to be making a public transmission and would not be for your own personal use. You can download music from the internet (no matter the source) and make a copy for your own personal use. You can also borrow an original CD and make a copy of it for your own personal use. You cannot make a copy and give it to a friend. You could lend your friend the original CD, give them a blank CD and let them use your computer to burn a copy for their own personal use. To make sure you stay with in the law make sure you make a copy of the original CD not a copy, making a copy of a copy could be considered infringement as the first copy would no longer be for personal use.

Because of the amount of press around American copyright issues and the fact that most U.S. and Canadian laws are very similar many Canadians do not realize that their law is different on music copyrights. In Canada since 1998 there has been a levy imposed on blank media with the money collected being distributed to eligible songwriters, musicians and record production companies. Some consider this paying for the right to make copies for their own use. There are many companies taking advantage of this misunderstanding and promoting "legal" downloads for a fee when it is not illegal in Canada to download music from the internet. So for Canadians as long as you are not sharing your music files on the internet and only download or make copies for your own personal use you are not violating any copyrights.

[WinTard]

At least in some parts of the world, it is LEGAL to download, backup and share (lend) with your friends or even borrow from the municipal Public Library or your friends. The point being the LEGALITY of it all.

In these different jurisdictions, people are not treated as criminals, regardless of what other special interest groups say, or whine about. Legally.

The rest is mere brainwashing and FUD, for selfish purposes. I for one, won't fall for that.

Thank you.

~~~~~~~~~~
Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly.
~ Dalai Lama (Spiritual Leader of the Dge-lugs-pa order of Tibetan Buddhists, 1989 Nobel Peace Prize, b.1935)

[deepsand]

"Lending my legitimally obtained copy to a friend doesn't mean I am duplicating it."



Already addressed several times over.



As for a "positive" act, the fact that the defendant here engaged in an affirmative act has likewise already been addressed.

[deepsand]

Fair Use is legal in the U.S.; the action of the defendant doesn't even come close to being Fair Use.



Those who claim otherwise engage in the propagation of "FUD, for selfish purposes."

[WinTard]

Good thing the US laws do not have dominion over the world.

Have you considered the moral implications and merits of these laws in the US, being bought and paid for by lobbyist bought and paid for by big corporations for selfish interests?

That is what I call FUD and brainwash. Anyone spreading Fear of the law, especially a bad law, is responsible for spreading FUD.

FEAR is False Evidence Appearing Real, also known as the most debilitating emotion known to mankind.

As per topic of this thread, we are not debating the merits of US copyright laws, but if the RIAA has gone too far?

Come on! 1.92 Million Dollars! ...

~~~~~~~~~~~
Those who like sausages and respect the law would lose all appetite and respect for either if they saw how they were made.
~ Unknown Source

If you have ten thousand regulations you destroy all respect for the law.
~ Winston Churchill